The announcement by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen that Canada could become the EU’s first “associate member”, made during her State of the Union address, took many by surprise, and not necessarily pleasantly. US President Donald Trump has already threatened tariffs on Europe if the plan goes ahead, calling the initiative “laughable” and a “hostile act.” Studio Europa asked Thomas Conzelmann, Full Professor of International Relations at Maastricht University, to explain what Europe could gain from bringing Canada closer to the EU and what this could mean for other countries that want deeper relations with Brussels.
Before discussing the potential benefits, it is important to understand what von der Leyen actually meant by the proposal, Conzelmann underlines:
“No one really knows what von der Leyen means by the model of ‘associate membership’ to the EU.
The prime purpose of this proposal seems to have been a gesture towards Mark Carney, who was in the Strasbourg audience and who has taken a domestic political risk in pushing for stronger relations with the EU and a tough stance against the USA under Trump. In addition, it seems that EU heads of state and government were not consulted on the proposal, which is remarkable considering that they play the leading role in the opening of membership negotiations. It is therefore difficult to spell out the practical implications of the model and how it would eventually benefit the EU or Canada.
One possible scenario could be the cooperation model with countries such as Iceland or Norway, through which these countries participate in the EU’s Single Market, cooperate with the EU in foreign and security policy and are part of the Schengen area. These countries, however, are not bound by the EU’s policies, for instance regarding fisheries and trade. An alternative model would be a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area agreement (DCFTA), like the ones offered to Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. These three countries also participate in the four freedoms, with exceptions in some sensitive industrial sectors and especially in the area of movement of people.
Such models could benefit both sides – the EU could gain access to critical raw materials, digital and AI technology and energy, whereas Canada would open up alternative export markets amidst the escalating trade war with the US. But the devil is in the detail, for instance as regards the scenario of enhanced Canadian steel exports to the EU or the debate around genetically modified foodstuffs. Geopolitically, both sides could gain through cooperation among middle powers trying to navigate a world with intense great-power competition. Moreover, both countries have been alienated by the erratic and aggressive policies of the Trump administration and share a concern about security in the Arctic.
In many ways, the ‘associate membership’ idea is a misnomer, as none of the arrangements mentioned above would make the respective countries full members of the EU. Politically, it is a non-starter, as no model for associate membership exists. Moreover, to the extent that treaty change would be required, the idea is very unlikely to gain the necessary political support.”
Von der Leyen presented the proposal as part of a broader effort to “reimagine” the EU’s international partnerships. Conzelmann believes it is too early to tell if the Canadian initiative will have a snowball effect, opening a similar route for countries such as the UK and Norway.
“There are plenty of tried-and-tested models for the EU to cooperate with third countries. In that way, it is difficult to imagine an entirely ‘new’ model of deeper relationships. The significance is more at the political level, as discussed above.
Whether developments in relations with Canada would have implications for the UK, Norway or Ukraine is difficult to tell. These three countries have very different relations with the EU. In the UK, the idea of reapproaching the EU is a very difficult sell domestically. Norway is unlikely to consider membership, given its differences with the EU over fisheries and budgetary issues, as well as domestic opposition (which is, however, declining recently). These obstacles are unlikely to disappear if Canada were to get closer to the EU.
Ukraine is a different matter, as it has formally opened membership negotiations. Predictions are, however, that joining the EU will be difficult, both due to problems in Ukraine (corruption), the implications for the balance of power and budget distribution in the EU, the necessity of treaty change, and the dangers of further Russian aggression. These concerns stand behind Chancellor Merz’s recent proposal to offer ‘associate membership’ to Ukraine, a move that was immediately rejected in Kyiv and didn’t land well with other EU leaders. Here too, the impact of closer EU-Canada relations is unlikely to be large.
One irony in this is that the EU and Canada have negotiated a free-trade agreement (CETA) that would bring Canada economically much closer to the EU. The agreement was signed in 2016, but ratification has been blocked in several EU member states.”
Prof. dr. Thomas Conzelmann is Full Professor of International Relations at the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Maastricht University. In the past, he served as Associate Dean of Research of the Faculty (2009-2013, 2018-2020) and as Director of its Graduate School (2020-2024). He was founding co-director of the Centre for European Research in Maastricht (CERiM).
